bdale at gag.com
Fri Jun 10 03:34:38 UTC 2011
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:00:38 -0700, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> But the "privately" from the next paragraph should be up here in this
It was my intent to capture that in the "narrowly or broadly" phrase.
> Easy key distribution will be key here.
Seriously, though, this is indeed a topic of persistent discussion, and
something we know we have to figure out and "get right" or very little
else makes sense. We've got some ideas, but this is an area where I'd
love to have more pointers and/or suggestions.
> > We want to provide a way for people to communicate with each other
> > privately, minimizing their dependence on service providers, and
> > hopefully providing some resiliency in the face of service outages.
> This paragraph unfortunately tangles a few different objectives. Each
> of these objectives requires very different software and network
> designs. We should untangle them:
Thanks! You've more or less written the second half of my next missive
on this subject for me. ;-)
> I think that Eben's original inspiration was the country-wide shutdown
> scenario (#5) which is one of the harder cases. I have a draft design
> that could perhaps handle it. I agree that it is worthwhile to
> engineer for this case -- but do we have a consensus that the whole
> project agrees to do this hard thing?
As an eventual goal, perhaps. What I'd like to focus on in the shorter
term is fleshing out your list, turning it in to a set of Debian
packages and related configuration to deliver solutions for at least some
of these scenarios.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Freedombox-discuss